About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
intellect or exercise in ideology. i covered ronald reagan for six years. and if you want to discuss it some more, i can tell what you i learned in those six years of covering the presidency. it with a lot different than than what i thought it was going to be. it became clear to me that to a large degree, it is a test of the president's will and purpose. to believe in a few big things, to stand steady against the swirl of political controversy, opinion, nowadays, that's certainly not true for the presidents in this book. polls, advice from counselors, all kinds of things that would drive a president away from his core convictions to not necessarily do what he believed in or what he really believed to be best for the country. this is a book about character, about 16 presidents from george washington to george w. bush who all in a moment of national crisis did what they in their hearts believe was the right thing for the country, who showed character. not necessarily what turned out to be right. think there's some decisions they made that i don't know i agree with. and you can certainly argue
earned that money and ronald reagan raised the age and that gave this this surplus and they robbed it out of there. >> thanks. nathaniel says in my opinion if we're going to cut the first thing to go is foreign aid. well there's another spending item. front page of the "washington post" dealing with the military. headline. four star lifestyle. points out the scandal involving david a try us has prompted new scrutiny of the general's lifestyle. the overseeing of troops around the world and these people enjoy perks. palatial homes and people to track their schedule and these with the jump page article the fog of more. do perks collar generals with a photograph of general a try us that would have been the equivalent of a presidential motorcade and then another one on dwight eisenhower on the 17th hole in scotland and the perks given to generals in the army and navy. admirals in the navy and others in the u.s. military. william from florida. democrat line. good morning. >> good morning. yes. i'll say instead of cutting entitlements like social security or medicaid. with social security, it's
examples of presidents who solved big problems by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic-led house after a far more resounding second-term victory than president obama's, as did bill clinton, with a republican-controlled house and a republican-controlled senate after a more resounding second-term victory than president obama. both examples -- both of them -- illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected, by thumbing his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans aren't willing to do things his way, he won't do anything at all. now, if the president's serious, he'll follow the leads of president reagan and clinton. if he's really serious, he'll put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic solution that can pass a republican-controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. and if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he'll have the support of his own party and a willing partner
been pro-immigration. ronald reagan was solidly for immigration reform, and if you go to youtube and google reagan-mondale debate, reagan making the case not for legalization, but for amnesty. using that word. now, republicans are pro-immigration, but they have been afraid for the past six years of anti-immigration lobby with an incredible political machine, and anybody who says anything constructive on immigration will be labeled pro-amnesty, and certainly, some talk show hosts, and now, i think this election cycle dramatically changed that. i can, at least, number half a dozen talk shows that said, you know what? my position evolved, and now i'm for immigration reform, but that is good because it will give cover to a lot of republicans who have avoided the issue or want to deal with the issue to actually do it so we have to reclaim the issue, and we can do it because immigration and being for immigration reform is actually the conservative position. restrictionists at the end is part of the nationalist, protectionist paradigm, and if we are the party of the family, if we ar
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4